Paid media
Get a Google / Meta / LinkedIn budget split matched to your contract size.
- Category
- Paid media
- Signup
- None
- Your data
- Stays in your browser
- Also in
- Claude, via MCP
How should I split ad budget between Google, Meta and LinkedIn?
Start from deal size, then let results decide. This tool sets a starting split by average contract value (in US dollars): under $1,000 leans Meta, $1,000 to $5,000 leans Google and Meta, $5,000 to $25,000 adds LinkedIn at 35%, and $25,000+ gives LinkedIn 55%. Reallocate once each channel shows its own cost per customer.
For a mid-market profile at $12,000 ACV, start around 40% Google / 25% Meta / 35% LinkedIn. Then let payback by channel, not the starting split, decide where the next dollar goes.
A starting envelope from deal economics, not a substitute for channel-level CAC. Reallocate toward whatever channel is compounding.
About this calculator
The right Google/Meta/LinkedIn split isn't a fixed rule of thumb, it moves with how big your average deal is, because LinkedIn's premium CPCs only make sense when the contract value can absorb them. This calculator recommends a starting budget allocation based on total budget and average contract value, giving you a defensible envelope to begin from rather than an arbitrary 40/40/20 split.
How to use it
- Enter your total monthly budget across all three channels.
- Enter your average contract value, the typical deal size this spend is meant to acquire.
- Read the recommended split across Google Ads, Meta and LinkedIn, along with the deal-tier label that drove the weighting.
Methodology
The calculator buckets average contract value into four tiers: low-ticket/volume (under $1,000), SMB ($1,000-$5,000), mid-market ($5,000-$25,000), and enterprise ($25,000+), each with a fixed recommended split.
At the low-ticket tier the split leans heavily Meta (55%) and Google (40%) with minimal LinkedIn (5%), since LinkedIn's CPC premium can't be justified by small deal sizes.
As contract value climbs into mid-market and enterprise tiers, LinkedIn's share rises substantially (up to 55% at the enterprise tier) because its intent-quality and professional targeting justify the higher cost per click against a much larger deal value.
This is a starting envelope derived purely from deal economics, it does not know your actual channel-level CAC or conversion performance. Once campaigns have real data, reallocate toward whichever channel is producing better payback, not toward the tier default.
Starting split by contract value tier
Under $1,000: Google 40%, Meta 55%, LinkedIn 5% $1,000 to $4,999: Google 45%, Meta 40%, LinkedIn 15% $5,000 to $24,999: Google 40%, Meta 25%, LinkedIn 35% $25,000 and above: Google 30%, Meta 15%, LinkedIn 55% Channel budget = Total budget × Channel share
- Average contract value
- First-year value of a typical deal. Rupee values are converted at the FBIL reference rate (₹95.75 per US dollar on 12 October 2026) to pick the tier.
- Total budget
- Monthly paid media budget across the three channels.
The splits are a starting envelope built into the tool, not research findings. The logic is cost per click against deal value: LinkedIn's clicks are usually the most expensive of the three, so it only pays when each deal is worth enough. After four to eight weeks, replace the tier split with your own cost per opportunity by channel.
Worked example: an Indian B2B firm with ₹12 lakh contracts
A software company sells annual contracts worth about ₹12,00,000 and has ₹6,00,000 a month for paid media across Google, Meta and LinkedIn.
- Contract value in US dollars = ₹12,00,000 ÷ 95.75 = $12,533, which falls in the $5,000 to $24,999 mid-market tier.
- Google = ₹6,00,000 × 40% = ₹2,40,000.
- Meta = ₹6,00,000 × 25% = ₹1,50,000.
- LinkedIn = ₹6,00,000 × 35% = ₹2,10,000.
- At LinkedIn's $10 daily minimum (about ₹29,000 a month per campaign), ₹2,10,000 funds up to seven campaigns, so it is better used on two or three well-defined audiences.
Run the split for six to eight weeks with every lead tagged by source in the CRM, then compare cost per opportunity by channel and move budget toward the cheapest. Check whether LinkedIn's share can pay at your deal size with the LinkedIn ad cost threshold calculator, and compare Google and Meta in Google Ads vs Meta Ads.
What is a good channel mix?
A good mix is one where the last rupee spent in each channel returns about the same. In practice:
- Track cost per opportunity and cost per customer by channel, not cost per lead.
- Move budget in steps (10% to 20% at a time) from the most expensive channel per customer to the cheapest, then re-measure.
- Stop when costs start to converge, or when the cheaper channel shows rising costs as it scales.
Keep a small test budget in any channel you have cut, because audiences and prices change.
Channel mix in India vs the US
Indian B2B buyers are reachable on all three channels, but Meta and WhatsApp click-to-chat ads often produce cheaper conversations than in the US, which can justify a larger Meta share for SMB deals. LinkedIn's 18% GST and dollar-linked pricing make it relatively more expensive against rupee deal values (LinkedIn Ads cost in India). Google Search remains the main channel for high-intent queries such as "CRM consultant" or "HubSpot partner".
US B2B advertisers often give LinkedIn a larger share because deal values are higher and job-title targeting matters for buying committees. Meta tends to work for SMB and product-led offers. For whole-funnel budgeting rather than channel splits, see the marketing budget calculator.
Common channel allocation mistakes
- Keeping the starting split after real cost-per-customer data exists.
- Judging channels on cost per lead when lead quality differs widely between them.
- Spreading a small LinkedIn budget across many audiences so none gets enough data.
- Ignoring the role of each channel: Meta and LinkedIn often create demand that Google later captures.
- Entering rupee contract values without the conversion, which pushes every deal into the top tier (now handled automatically).
Sources
- Making the Most of Your Budget, LinkedIn Marketing Solutions. Accessed 2026-10-19.
- Foreign Exchange Reference Rates, Financial Benchmarks India Pvt Ltd (FBIL). Accessed 2026-10-17.
FAQ
LinkedIn's CPCs run several times higher than Google or Meta, but its professional targeting and intent quality can justify that premium when the deal at the other end is large enough to absorb a higher cost per lead. At small contract values, that same premium CPC simply doesn't pencil out.
Treat it as a reasonable starting point for a new or restructured budget, not a permanent formula. It is deliberately simple, once you have a few weeks of channel-level CAC and conversion data, let that performance data override the starting weights.
Use your median or most common deal size rather than an average skewed by a few outliers, one enterprise deal in a mostly-SMB pipeline would misleadingly push the recommendation toward a heavier LinkedIn weighting than your typical deal supports.
No, it is based purely on deal value. Channels aimed at longer sales cycles (like LinkedIn for enterprise) also need patience before CAC payback shows up, budget the split with that lag in mind rather than expecting fast, Meta-speed feedback from every channel.
Often yes, especially for SMB buyers, founders and offers with a short decision cycle. Meta's targeting is less precise by job title than LinkedIn's, so judge it on cost per opportunity rather than lead volume.
Because its higher click costs are only affordable when each deal is valuable enough. At large contract values, reaching the right job titles matters more than cheap clicks.
Monthly is usually enough, using data on opportunities and customers, which lag clicks and leads. Rebalance more often only if spend is large and conversion data arrives quickly.
Numbers looking off?
If the model says one thing and the pipeline says another, that gap is usually where the revenue is. A 30-minute call finds it.
It starts with a 30-minute call. Pick a time below.